Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/08/23 Tape: 303 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, August 23, 1989 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Fuller, Grasser, Cannon, Casillas and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tugenberg - with notification STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Associate Planner Griffin, Assistant Planner Herrera, Planning Technician Fry, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, and Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A gentleman who did not fill out a speak slip suggested that a mechanism be developed among the City, the developers and the neighbors to address the question of interface prior to the developer's presentation of an item before the Planning Commission thereby saving time and money. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-89-5M - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN BY THE REDESIGNATION OF A CERTAIN 4.29 ACRE AREA, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF OXFORD STREET, BETWEEN FOURTH AVENUE AND THE LAUDERBACH PARK AND COMMUNITY CENTER, FROM "PARKS AND OPEN SPACE" AND "SPECIAL STUDY AREA" TO "LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (3 TO 6 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)" ON THE PLAN DIAGRAM OF THE SAID MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN Principal Planner Pass stated that this is a proposal to change the designation of acres located on the southerly side of Oxford between Lauderbach Center Park and the fire station on Fourth Avenue to "Low/Medium Planning Commission -2- August 23, 1989 Density Residential." The matter has been subject to several considerations by the Montgomery Planning Committee {MPC) including two workshops. The area has 25 dwelling units located on 13 parcels of land, and contains seven single-family dwellings and nine duplexes. The potential dwelling yield, with the affordable housing density bonus, would be 39 units. The probable zoning of the area would be R-2-P, which is the equivalent of about 14 dwelling units per net acre. The Montgomery Planning Committee found that there is still a clear and present need for the expansion of Lauderbach Park, and that the proposed amendment would protect the City's interests in the eventual enlargement of the park. The Committee also found that the proposed amendment would preserve the residential character of the project area, and would protect the property owners' conveyance and reasonably develop their sites. The consensus of the property owners was that the low-medium residential density and the R-2-P zoning would be acceptable. The Planning Department concurs with the MPC, and recommends approval of the proposed amendment, as expressed in the attached staff report. The proposed R-2-P rezoning will be submitted at a future date. Commissioner Casillas said that the area needs park and open space desperately but the proposal would allow the residents to build further and exacerbate the existing traffic problem. The residents clearly stand to benefit from the upzoning. The fact that the action would not economically preclude the City from the expansion of Lauderbach just means the City will pay more money for property that it could have acquired for less. He said he was not certain he could support the proposal. Principal Planner Pass replied by observing that the Montgomery Planning Committee is still supportive of expanding Lauderbach Park, but is cognizant of the fact that the Montgomery Specific Plan, which is partially regulatory, cannot and should not, for a protracted period of time, preclude property owners from economically developing their land. He further noted that the City is not prepared to buy the land at the present time. One problem is that on the eve of annexation, the County reclassified the area to RU-29 which, with the density bonus, would result in 150 dwelling units on that site. There would be no way the City could purchase that land and displace those people. The traffic would also be enormous. This possibility led to the creation of the Oxford Street Special Study Area. The City concluded there are calculated risks in bringing the area up to R-2-P, but the way the lands are subdivided the increase in density would not be substantial; the people could enjoy their land until the City had the money and considered whether it was ready to purchase it for park purposes. Mr. Pass concluded that parks were badly needed in the area, he supported the Commissioner's sentiments, but considered that the MPC had weighed the issues and had submitted an acceptable and prudent solution to protect the City and the citizens of the area. Answering Commissioner Cannon's question, Mr. Pass continued that the decision to go to R-2-P instead of an R-1 designation was because the predominant use of the area is duplex and although the R-1 would allow a smaller density, it would not allow people to have reasonable expansion of their land in conjunction with its character. Designating the area as R-1 would improve the traffic situation but it would lessen the capacity of the citizens to have economic enjoyment of their land. Planning Commission -3- August 23, 1989 This being the time and the place as indicated, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. R. Wiseman, 349 Oxford St., 92011, spoke in opposition saying the policy of keeping the value low was unfair to the owners; that if the property were wanted it should be purchased now and not just be "put on hold for Chula Vista's benefit later". In reply to Commissioner Cannon's question, Ms. Wiseman said the property was currently RU-29 and prior to that it was R-2. Lynn Pankhurst, 171 Palomar #106, CV, said she objected strenuously to the redesignation of the property; felt they were being cheated of additional recreational facilities alluded to by the City before annexation; the density in Montgomery is already on overload and requested the proposal be denied. She concluded by saying that the Planning Committee did not represent all the residents in the Community. Anthony J. Petrozzelli, 2998 Arbonac Road, San Diego, 92154, representing Theresa Petrozzelli, 355 A Oxford Street, CV., spoke in opposition saying the park on Oxford was sufficient for the area. Expansion of the park would invite gangs and increase problems in the area. He asked why the Commission had permitted construction of the apartment complex adjacent to the park prior to the study? Why were not the parks located in an area that would not be damaging to the residents? Mr. Petrozzelli protested that a dangerous precedent was being set by threatening to take away people's property for something to happen in the future. He recommended the situation remain as it was and the City not penalize the owners because they are a small, political minority. In response to questions from the Chair, Mr. Petrozzelli said he had also testified before the Montgomery Planning Committee. A1 Piselli, 359 Oxford Street, CV 92011, representing his parents, his grandmother and himself, opposed the redesignation saying things should be left alone; if there is a need for more park space, why should they be the ones to suffer when the City is responsible for the overgrowth of Chula Vista; the old zoning should be reinstated and a guarantee given the residents that the City is not going to be taking over the area in the future so they can relax. Mr. Piselli said they had addressed their concerns before the Montgomery Planning Committee earlier. Ms. Roxie Freeman, 634 Mariposa Circle, 92011, representing her mother, Thelma Hastings, 357 Oxford Street, said she had attended all the meeting on this matter. She said she was of the opinion that the City was trying to bring the value of the property down so they could buy it later. Her mother's property had been sold and when it was discovered that the property was included in the Montgomery Specific Plan, the sale fell through; no one considers this an upzoning; it has been dragging on for 2 years and their lives are being put "on hold". The Police Department statistics regarding Lauderbach Park are bad; there is a need to contain the crime and corruption that is going on in the parks now instead of building more parks. Regarding traffic, Ms. Freeman said the residents were not the ones who approved the new commercial areas; and the apartment complexes like the one being constructed on Fourth and "G". Planning Commission -4- August 23, 1989 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cannon said that since the annexation of the Montgomery Area, the City has made a strong attempt to stabilize the zoning in the area. He disagreed with Mr. Casillas to the extent that we should try to keep those houses as they are now under the zoning that Chula Vista has. This varies somewhat from the County zoning as of the time it was annexed, when a substantial increase was granted from R-2 to RU-29. This is not RU-29. Staff's recommendation is R-2 which is similar to what it was immediately prior to annexation. MSC (Cannon/Grasser) 5-1, Casillas no, to adopt the Negative Declaration issued in conjunction with IS-89-75M and that its contents were considered during the review of GPA-89-5M. MSC(Cannon/Grasser) 5-1, Casillas no, to adopt a motion to approve GPA-89-5M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 AND PCS-89-8 CONSIDERATION OF A SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP KNOWN AS WOODCREST SOUTHWESTERN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-8, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN APACHE DRIVE AND BUENA VISTA WAY WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT (CONTINUED) Commissioner Cannon stated that he had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers. Principal Planner Lee said that this tentative subdivision map and SPA plan had been continued several times; the last time being at the request of adjacent property owners. The applicant is proposing to divide a 19.2 acre site located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road between Buena Vista Way and Apache Drive in the P-C zone into 54 single-family lots and one open space lot. The average lot size is 8,900 square feet with a minimum of 5,900 square feet. All dwellings will have 3-car garages and 20 percent of the lots will use the 5-foot and 5-foot sideyards. Access to the site will be Apache Drive to the east. Neighborhood concerns expressed earlier have been addressed as follows: 1. Extension of Santa Cruz to the west to connect with Buena Vista Staff determined that because of the uncertainty regarding development of the area to the north by the College, it would be better not to connect that road for vehicular traffic but to request the developer to design a knuckle at the west end of Santa Cruz for pedestrian activity flow and landscaping. 2. Buffering the project at the west end - These lots are as low as 11 feet below the subdivision and it is proposed that a 15-foot wide landscaping buffer be provided on lots 23 through 29 which interface on the west side of the property, and continuation of the 6-foot high cedar fence for a decorative separation between the two developments. The area would be maintained by each of the residents and be part of the CC&Rs with the City being a party to that portion of the CC&Rs for enforcement purposes. Planning Commission -5- August 23, 1989 3. Improvements required for the stub street interfacing with the Centrullo property - Ms. Centrullo has not given permission for off-site grading at this time. Staff has included a condition for an easement in that area to allow for any future grading that might occur. Staff has recommended that in the future the City initiate a Specific Plan Amendment on the property to change the land use designation from 4-6 du/ac to 4-2 du/ac based on the change in land use from an attached product to a single-family detached one. Principal Planner Lee referenced a letter from the attorneys representing the adjacent property owner regarding the 60-foot easement claimed along the north property line of their property. This is a private matter between the two parties but recordation of the Final Map would not occur if the previous owner is able to provide the City with proof of a recorded easement. The letter states that the property is land-locked without the easement; however, this particular subdivision would provide a stub street to access that property. Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map and the SPA Plan subject to the conditions listed in the staff report which include the knuckle design on the northwest corner of the property, the landscaping program along the west property line and compliance with the City's Threshold Standards as well as terminal water storage, growth management program, sufficient schooling available and a change in condition "jj" from the word "maintenance" to "construction of the Telegraph Canyon Channel." Commissioner Shipe referenced condition "gg" and asked the reason why the name Santa Cruz Court is subject to change. Mr. Lee replied that if landscaping were provided in that portion instead of a street connection there might be confusion; however, it is now believed that this juncture would stay with that street name. In reply to Commissioner Grasser, Mr. Lee said the average pad size would be 5,000 to 6,000. Commissioner Carson asked the reason for the pedestrian walkway instead of a road and was told that staff was originally concerned about movement for emergency services; however, the College has substantial area to be developed in this location and while the City would try to direct the traffic back to the main loop road and out to Otay Lakes Road, provision of the knuckle at this location would ensure that any future connection by the College would be directed back out to Apache rather than back through the residential areas. In the meantime, the combination of pedestrian walkway and landscaping would permit students safer access to the elementary school. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Karl Zobell, 1200 Prospect St., La Jolla, 92037, representing Woodcrest Development, said they were in agreement with staff and with the conditions. He asked to speak last so he could address any problems that were brought up by the neighbors. Planning Commission -6- August 23, 1989 Robert Giangreco, 1391 La Mancha Place, 92010, said agreement had been reached with the developer who has been most considerate and helpful in working with the neighbors. Most of the problems remaining seem to be with staff instead of the developer. Mr. Giangreco stated that the neighbors had suggested the knuckle design at Santa Cruz; Planning Director Krempl had said that he was reserving the option to open the street up if needed in the future; the Planning Commission deserved to know if the street was going to remain closed or if it was a temporary expedient to satisfy the neighbors. Mr. Giangreco pointed out the traffic hazards if Buena Vista Way were to be used as a feeder route (the blind curve and traffic by young children) and requested "more of a promise from staff that the street would not be opened up." Mr. Giangreco asked why the 15-foot buffer area could not be used as open space, and that making the buffer zone part of the CC&Rs makes enforcement difficult; he and the neighbors feel the lower density of 2-4 is more appropriate to the area. In reply to the Chair's question about which neighbors he was representing, he answered that he represented the neighbors on La Mancha about the open space issue and there was no disagreement among the neighbors about the knuckle on Santa Cruz. Dave Young, 395 La Mancha Place, 92010, also confirmed the helpfulness of the developer. He said that his original thought had been to have the access road be a perimeter road and have a buffer road between the two developments with a 15-foot buffer zone included. Woodcrest has told him that the City will not permit such an arrangement because of the fire regulations and the street slopes. Therefore, he is in favor of what Woodcrest has proposed; namely, a 15-foot buffer zone in the backyards and CC&Rs for enforcement. Also agreed upon is the removal of the balconies looking into the neighboring yards. Mr. Young said that as long as the developer does what he has promised, then he would have no objection to that development. Principal Planner Lee said he would like to respond to some concerns expressed. Regarding the street vacation, it is the intent of the City to provide the Pedestrian/landscaping connection and although there is no intention of putting the street through, staff cannot control what a future City Council may elect to do. Open space areas become a matter for review by the Director of Parks and Recreation and any area being maintained must be dedicated to the City. If the rear portion of the lots is dedicated, it becomes a more difficult area to maintain. For that reason, staff tries to ensure that those areas are on the perimeter of the development facing the public road system. The direction received from the Parks and Recreation Director has been to limit the open space maintenance districts as much as possible because of on-going costs. Staff is not dissatisfied with the applicant's solution in terms of providing landscaping as long as the City is made a part of the CC&Rs and there is no provision for any construction to take place in those areas. Mr. Young returned to the podium and said that he had been assured by the developer that the drainage situation would be taken care of. He said he felt a great deal of confusion could have been eliminated if the City had directed the developer to meet with the neighbors at an earlier date. Planning Commission -7- August 23, 1989 Mike Myerson, 1390 La Mancha, CV 92010, noted that the idea of an open space district maintained by the City might not be in the best interests of the area because having an area accessible by a street ending at that point, would permit intruders to scale the fence into the open space and make crime more of a possibility. For that reason, he agrees with the developer's proposal. Mr. Myerson said he took exception to the study regarding the impact to the schools in the local area and would like to go on record saying that even though he has no facts to counter these statements other than close involvement with Chula Vista Hills, the mention that approximately 16 elementary school children, 6 middle school students and 10 high school students will be generated by the 54 homes is, in his opinion, grossly underestimated. Also referenced is the statement that 329 students are enrolled in Chula Vista Hills. This is totally understated since it was last year's enrollment when students had been permitted to complete their year at their old school rather than move to Chula Vista Hills. The school, at present, is close to capacity. John Fleming, 1386 La Mancha Place, CV 92010, thanked the developers for the cooperation they had manifested in working with the neighbors. He emphasized that in filling in the undeveloped pockets in the area it is extremely important that the developers get together with the adjacent property owners and hear their considerations first to avoid continuance after continuance as has happened in this case. Mr. Fleming said he would like to address those remarks to staff particularly because in all the times they have attended they had not heard about alternate uses and the possibility of Southwestern College in the project area. The knuckle was initiated by residents as a result of their seeing the difficulties caused by this blind curve. He encouraged staff to get the neighbors involved. Mr. Myerson continued that he expected transients if there is an open space area but he would like to see the buffer space maintained by the owners themselves. Commissioner Grasser commented that it was not the responsibility of the staff to ensure that neighbors and developers get together, but that of the developer. James C. Stevens, 530 B Street, Ste 2330, S.D., 92101, a lawyer representing Mary Centrullo, the owner of the vacant lot to the southeast of the project area, said the dispute between the developer and Ms. Centrullo is a private dispute but it has public implications. His office had provided staff documents depicting the location of the easement which Ms. Centrullo reserved when she sold the property. The easement is located on the southern portion of the panhandle of the Woodcrest property. It is 60 feet wide and runs the length of the panhandle. The tentative map would result in the City authorizing the construction of five houses on what was intended to be an access and buffer easement. In reply to Commissioner Grasser's question if there was an easement on record and why it was not shown on the Title, Mr. Stevens replied that it is not on record but if the case proceeds to Court it can be demonstrated that Woodcrest took title to the property with full knowledge of the existence of Ms. Centrullo's claim of easement. He indicated Planning Commission -8- August 23, 1989 that an oversight had occurred on the part of the escrow company that handled the sale between Ms. Centrullo and the intervening property owner. The easement was reflected on a map made a part of the purchase and sale agreement; however, when the documents were recorded, the map inadvertently was not. Commissioner Grasser asked why this should be considered a hardship when Ms. Centrullo still has access to her property? Mr. Stevens replied that statement presumed the developer would go forward as proposed, however, the purposes of the easement was not just access but to serve as a buffer. He submitted that for the project to go forward would be inappropriate and might result in a Court battle which would delay the completion of the project and might result in a project different from what is now presented. Nevertheless, if the Commission does approve the tentative map, it would be appropriate that an amendment to Condition "m" be made. As presently drafted, this Condition states that the developer would post funds for completion of the stub street rather than complete the street to Ms. Centrullo's property line. This was a presumption that Ms. Centrullo would not allow grading on her property to the extent necessary to complete the stub street. Ms. Centrullo will allow Woodcrest grading rights only to the extent necessary to complete the stub street to the property line; however, she wishes the right to approve or disapprove the grading plans before granting them. If she were to disapprove the grading plans, it would be satisfactory for the developer to post funds to ensure future completion of the stub street. Mr. Fleming said that any amendment to the Specific Plan which would result in a downzon~n~ of Ms. Centrullo's property would be vigorously opposed. He suggested waiting until a decision was reached by Ms. Centrullo regarding her property. Chairwoman Carson asked if staff had received copies of the alternate conditions submitted to the Commission? She then passed a copy to staff for their perusal. Karl Zobell, Woodcrest Development, said he was happy that the problems to the west had been worked out with the neighbors. Regarding the problem to the east, they concur with staff's statement that Ms. Centrullo's problem is solved by the conditions attached to the map. A final (or recorded) map is not obtainable unless the street has been fully improved to City Standards and dedicated to the City. If that occurs, then Ms. Centrullo will have access through Apache and through that stub street. One aspect of the staff report that is not completely correct is that there has been no communication between Woodcrest and Ms. Centrullo since the last hearing. There have probably been 20 or 30 communications back and forth, but no agreement reached. The dispute relates to the easement which may or may not exist. Their Title Insurance Company has informed them that they have good title, that there is no easement. Woodcrest is willing to comply with every condition to improve and dedicate the streets. Mr. Zobell said he had not as yet had time to read the alternate conditions submitted by Mr. Stevens but if he is saying that Woodcrest should complete the stub street rather than just deposit the necessary funds, Woodcrest is agreeable to that if it is also on the condition that the party agrees to a permission to grade. As of the current afternoon, such permission had not been granted. If what is being said is that the condition is that Woodcrest improve out to the property line if they can get a Planning Commission -9- August 23, 1989 satisfactory permission to grade from the neighbor, that is fine. If Woodcrest can't get a satisfactory permission to grade, then they will follow staff's condition and build the street out as far as they can and deposit with the City the necessary funds to complete the balance. Some time line needs to be imposed on that condition, as experience {since March) indicates the difficulty in coming to an agreement over that property line and the developer would not like to be held up past a reasonable time. Principal Planner Lee said that the condition is very wordy and has some isues that need further resolution between the City and the developer and is not acceptable as written. Staff prefers the conditions as they are cited in the staff report. However, if between now and the City Council hearing, the developer wishes to come in and meet with Engineering to resolve those issues, staff is willing to do that. Mr. Zobell returned to the podium and said he would concur with Mr. Lee in that there was more changed than can be read quickly. He would prefer to see adoption with staff's conditions but would volunteer to meet with Ms. Centrullo, her representatives and staff to see if something more acceptable can be worked out. Mr. Stevens also indicated his willingness to meet with the City and the developer. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Grasser/Fuller) 5-0, Cannon out, that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-63. Commissioner Grasser said she agreed with staff that it was not the place of the Commission to resolve the dispute regarding the easement and she would propose the following motion in the hopes that the issue could be resolved. MSUC (Grasser/Fuller) 5-0, Cannon out, that based on the findings contained in Section "D" of the staff report to recommend that the City Council approve the sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map for Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, subject to conditions "a" through "kk" with a correction to 2J ~ change the word "maintenance" to "construction of the Telegraph Canyon Channel" and the addition of a new condition "kk" that no second-story balconies shall be constructed or maintained on the west side of the residences located on lots 23-29. Commissioner Cannon returned to the Chambers and the dais. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-13: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SERENA RANCHO DEL REY, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-13 BREHM COMMUNITIES Associate Planner Griffin noted that the item involved a tentative subdivision map known as Serena Rancho del Rey, with a request to develop a five-lot condominium project of 147 units on 9.53 acres at the northeast corner of East 'H' Street and Buena Vista Way. The project design was approved by the Design Planning Commission -10- August 23, 1989 Review Committee on July 27, 1989. Also proposed for the area is a community park on the north, a church site on the west, with existing condominiums abutting the site on the east and single-family homes to the south across East 'H' Street. The 147 townhome unit clusters will be served by a private drive with a single access off Buena Vista Way. llO two-story units will each have a 2-car garage and private fenced yard, while the remaining 37 units are 990 square feet, second-story carriage units with a one-car garage and balcony. An additional 67 spaces of open parking are provided. The project features a central open space area with a pool. Additional landscaping is provided along private drives and within buffers along the abutting streets. A decorative fencing program is planned to abut the park site. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bill Hoover, 2835 Camino del Rio South, #220, San Diego, 92108, representing Brehm Communities indicated his availability to answer any questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Shipe/Cannon) 6-0 that based on the findings contained in Section 'E' of the staff report, to recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Serena Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 89-13, subject to conditions 1 through 20. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-12 CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SUN-UP VISTA, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-12 GOLD KEY DEVELOPMENT Associate Planner Griffin indicated that the item was a tentative subdivision map known as Sun-Up Vista, which proposed subdividing 2.31 acres located on the south side of Telegraph Canyon into nine single-family lots. Also included is an existing house at 66 Telegraph Canyon Road. The areas surrounding the site are zoned single-family with the exception of Hilltop Junior High School to the north. An unimproved drainage way traverses the length of the property, 75 feet back from the frontage. The single-family homes to the south and east are well above the site with the exception of two homes adjoining the southeasterly extension of the property. The proposal is to retain the existing dwelling and create eight other lots. Six of the lot would front on Telegraph Canyon Road and three panhandle lots would be served by a private drive. The channel would be improved and a bridge would be constructed to provide access to the three panhandle lots. The average lot size is 9,000+ square feet. The proposal is to establish two-story dwellings on the eight Tots -- six with two-car garages and two with two-car garages in the panhandle area. In the conditions it has been recommended that the panhandle area be reduced to two lots to provide a better interface with the slopes and the abutting homes. This would also significantly improve the parking situation. At present, the homes are planned for five guest spaces but the access is difficult because of these spaces and their relationship to the access drive. Planning Commission -ll- August 23, 1989 An additional major issue was adequate rear yard space. The proposal is to provide wider sideyards to compensate for the channel and lack of rearyards. The minimum area suggested is 15 feet for usability in a fashion similar to the rearyard. Provisions are also included to protect the privacy of the adjacent dwellings. Commissioner Carson referenced the Negative Declaration, page 3, under Item 8, Traffic, and said that as a point of clarification and for the record this area would not be served by Chula Vista Junior and Chula Vista High School but by Hilltop Junior and Hilltop High. The Commissioner said she had been unable to find the Preliminary Soils Impact Investigation Report that was supposedly in the packet. She also expressed concern over the following issues: - Whether the concerns mentioned in the letters included in the packet have been addressed? - Under Fire Safety - the issue of roof top fires. It has been necessary to wet roofs down in the past along Telegraph Canyon Road. - Soils stability - monitoring closely the cracks developing because some of those homes may be on fill. - The concrete liner, the spring and the concerns expressed by the Battricks. - The drainage and the swale may be covered in condition "l" but there is a major problem on First avenue where children like to play in the drainage ditch. The water builds up and over on the grass in Hilltop Park as much as 3 to 4 feet to the west side of the ditch, and it also builds up 15 to 16 feet down by First Avenue and looks like a litter river when it rains. The legal responsibility and possible lawsuits resulting from children playing in the ditches is something that needs consideration. Commissioner Carson concluded that she shares these concerns equally with those who have written about them. Mr. Griffin asked for more time to peruse the Negative Declaration and the environmental documents in order to provide answers. Commissioner Cannon said he was surprised at finding a reference to the location of only one test pit when the potential area for the underwater spring was so large. Commissioner Casillas asked the width of the access bridge to the panhandle lots. Mr. Griffin replied that it was 20 feet wide and in compliance with the panhandle lot provision. Commissioner Fuller asked what monitoring provisions were required for those houses with the fire sprinkling system as it was not mentioned in the Fire Marshall's report. Mr. Griffin said he did not know. Planning Commission -12- August 23, 1989 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Roderick McGraw, 845A Del Mar Downs Rd., Solana Beach, CA 92075, the architect, said they were present to explain the development of the three sites in the back. None of the requirements for panhandle sites are violated. The site is ll feet below the property behind it. In reference to the settling caused by extensive grading and retaining walls, a wall that will be sunk in the ground will be placed against the property line. The top of the hill will slope at a 2:1 drain a distance of 10 feet. There will be a swale to retain water 2 feet from the house and the pad will be 5 feet below. That means the wall projecting out of the rear yard will be 5 feet high and will not be visible from the rear. In the front, the wall will be landscaped at a 2:1 bank with an earth border above it with a hedge and will also be hidden from view. There will be 46 feet from the house to the property line because of the easement going through. There will be adequate sideyard and rearyard. Lot #2 - the bed will be 4 feet below the first pad. Lot #3 at the end of the cul-de-sac will be 3 feet below that pad. Extensive grading is not being done but is being accomplished by elevating the cul-de-sac as one comes across the bridge; the bridge will actually be tilted to pick up that distance. The concept of changing from three lots to two does not accomplish anything. There will still be two houses and still a 4-foot differential. The concept involving the sideyards refers to the houses on Telegraph Canyon Road. Twenty feet of sideyard are provided. This is done because of the location of the drainage ditch. The only house not adhering to the 15-foot setback is the fourth house which is longer and narrower with a 35-foot rearyard. Regarding the drainage from the school, Mr McGraw said that they are not interfering with that but improving it on one end. The flow will remain the same. The improvement to the drainage ditch wit the crib wall (which allows planting between the blocks) will render it more attractive. The parking on the cul-de-sac is as good as can be in a cul-de-sac. The report is not accurate in that they have neither heavy grading nor many retaining walls. The recommendation to eliminate one of the lots is unjust. Norm Sakara, 8542 Neva Ave., San Diego, 92123, representing Sun-Up Vista, Gold Key Development, reiterated Mr. McGraw's statement that the project is in compliance with all zoning laws. To change from three lots to two opens up the possibility that the area might not be considered developable because of the room taken up by the drainage ditch. If so, then the City misses out on two points, the widening of Telegraph Canyon Road to meet the existing width to the west and the completion of the missing segment in the improvements to the drainage channel. Regarding concerns about the water rushing through, Mr. Sakara said the area is being cleaned up and improved. Jim Tesch, 102 E1 Capitan Drive, CV, 92011, read his letter of August 21, 1989 into the record. This letter maintained that the Initial Study failed to provide a hydrological study regarding the location and effects of a spring on the concrete liner in the drainage swale handling rain runoff. Also, that an investigation should be made into the soil stabilization condition and Planning Commission -13- August 23, 1989 possible changes in the area. He requested that a letter be written to him "in layman's language" regarding these subjects. Regarding the sewer pipe running parallel to the property line, the City has placed screens on this pipe as a child deterrent, he asked if the developer has plans for keeping the children off the pipe. Mr. Tesch spoke in favor of two houses rather than three in the panhandle. Mrs. Noelle Battrick, 70 E1 Capitan Drive, CV, 92011, said her major concern is the extensive grading that will be required on the three houses to be located below her property. During rains the flooding in that area is extensive and the water flow very strong. They have a garden down in the canyon which requires very little watering because of the spring running underneath. She believes the force and depth of the runoff also indicates the presence of such a spring. The architect needs to take a look at how stable the slope is. Mr. Tesch's house is on fill and he has trouble stabilizing his slope; with the cracking and the rain runoff, his house started to slip. The necessary heavy grading will not improve the situation and the swale following its normal course could undermine what is is being done. They, s homeowners, took out extra insurance because of the proximity of the sewage pipe and the children playing on it. Also, on their property is a water pipe which burst and the City had to come out and repair it. She was told that an 8-foot easement exists so the City can access the pipe. She did not see that water pipe indicated on the map, but it is there and the developer and staff should be made aware of it. No else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Associate Planner Griffin said the Soils Report was in the files but not included in the packet and asked if the developer's geologist was present. The reply was negative. Mr. Griffin then said he would attempt to answer the previous questions from the report now at hand. Commissioner Canon said he wished to see an read the Soils Report for himself. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) 6-0 to continue this item but not to reopen the public hearing to the next meeting on September 13, 1989. Commissioner Casillas requested that staff provide some graphics to enable a better understanding of how the sewer line runs through and also to address some of the concerns raised at this meeting. Commissioner Carson requested that staff indicate if there is an easement for the waterline on the property and where it is recorded. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Grasser brought up the repeated complaints about problems in public parks and asked if there was any solution in sight. Commissioner Carson added that Task Force 2000 is also looking at this issue. A discussion of some of the various disturbing elements to be found in the parks ensued. Planning Commission -14- August 23, 1989 ELECTION OF OFFICERS MS (Fuller/Casillas) that Joanne Carson and Bob Tugenberg remain as Chair and Vice Chairman for an additional year. Commissioner Cannon stated that notwithstanding the very excellent job Ms. Carson has done, still she has been in that post for 2 years and it is time someone else took a leadership role in the Commission as each member should be elected to that position at least once. Commissioner Casillas said he had been most impressed by Ms. Carson's performance. He was aware that Commissioner Tugenberg did not wish to be Chair and urged that Ms. Carson accept. The motion to elect Joanne Carson and Bob Tugenberg to another year as Chair and Vice Chair failed by the followin~ vote: AYES: Fuller, Grasser, Casillas NOES: Cannon and Shipe ABSTAIN: Carson ABSENT: Tugenberg MSUC(Grasser/Shipe) 6-0, that Bob Tugenber§ be elected to the office of Chair and Shirley Grasser to that of Vice Chair. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Krempl stated that Council had accepted the First Annual Report of the Growth Management Oversight Committee. The Director extended his compliments to Commissioner Cannon who had chaired the GMOC very ably and said he hoped the Commission shared his pride in the fine job the Commissioner had done. The Director also noted that, as an interim measure, the Council had passed an Urgency Ordinance that applicants with zoning inconsistent with the General Plan must apply for a General Plan Amendment until the General Plan is completely implemented. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:17 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of September 13, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ~u . Smit , Secretary Planning Commission WPC 6737P